Challenges for the (Present/) Future of ird World Approaches to International Law

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-477
Author(s):  
Ibironke Odumosu

AbstractThis article examines the future of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) and its ability to meet its challenges and achieve its objectives in a hegemonic international system. It discusses the fundamental role of ideas, the challenge of ideational (and material) power, and the reconstruction of identities, in meeting the challenges of TWAIL perspectives. In discussing these components and their interaction, the article observes that while they show some promise for the future of TWAIL, they also embody severe limitations. The article concludes with some thoughts about TWAIL's future engagements and on the note that even though the challenges are arduous, TWAIL perspectives possess some potential to meet the present and future challenges of reconstructing the international legal system.

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 33
Author(s):  
Roghieh Ebrahimi ◽  
Hossein Sharifi Tarazkouhi

International law as one of the human sciences which has been formed in the light of governments’ needs for regulation of relations and pertinences is a set of rules which based on the increasing complexity of international life; it has been added to its importance gradually. The international nature of rules in this science leads the main followers of international system namely government to be identified as drafters of aforementioned rules. In this research we will discussed about the status of human thoughts as the smallest subjects of international system and we try to prove this hypothesis that human thoughts had been an essential component in the formation of rules in the international legal system.


2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 485-501
Author(s):  
Mario Krešić

The purpose of this article is to analyze the role of peace in the theory of international law of Hans Kelsen and Hersh Lauterpacht. The 1960 shift in Kelsen' s approach to the role of peace will be elaborated in detail. Along with the theoretical account on the connection between peace and law, both authors have directed their theories to practical matters in the existing international legal system. At the end of the analysis, the similarities and differences between Kelsen and Lauterpacht will be described.


2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordi Jaria i Manzano ◽  
Antonio Cardesa-Salzmann ◽  
Antoni Pigrau ◽  
Susana Borràs

This paper takes ecological debt as a measure of environmental injustice, and appraises this idea as a driving force for change in the international legal system. Environmental justice is understood here as a fair distribution of charges and benefits derived from using natural resources, in order to provide minimal welfare standards to all human beings, including future generations. Ecological debt measures this injustice, as an unfair and illegitimate distribution of benefits and burdens within the social metabolism, including ecologically unequal exchange, as a disproportionate appropriation and impairment of common goods, such as the atmosphere. Structural features of the international system promote a lack of transparency, control and accountability of power, through a pro-growth and pro-freedom language. In theory, this discourse comes with the promise of compensation for ordinary people, but in fact it benefits only a few. Ecological debt, as a symptom of the pervasive injustice of the current balance of power, demands an equivalent response, unravelling and deconstructing real power behind the imagery of equally sovereign states. It claims a counterhegemonic agenda aiming at rebuilding international law from a pluralist, 'third world' or Southern perspective and improving the balance of power. Ecological debt should not only serve as a means of compensation, but as a conceptual definition of an unfair system of human relations, which needs change. It may also help to define the burdens to be assumed as costs for the change required in international relations, i.e. by promoting the constitutionalization of international law and providing appropriate protection to human beings under the paradigms of sustainability (not sustainable development) and equity.Key Words: environmental justice, ecological debt, international legal system


Author(s):  
Valentina Vadi

The dialectic between continuity and change lies at the heart of international law, which seeks to foster peaceful, just, and prosperous relations among nations. International law endeavors to govern the future by applying, in the present, norms that are inherited from the past. Nonetheless, everything flows and in an ever-changing world, some change is needed within the international legal system to ensure its stability especially in time of crisis. Not only can crises constitute means for the development of international law, but they can test, undermine or ultimately buttress the structure of international law. This article explores the connection between crisis, continuity, and change in international investment law and arbitration. It seeks to answer the following question: can international investment law successfully address the challenges posed by the coronavirus crisis? Or will the pandemic change the field of international investment law as we know it? After briefly discussing a range of procedural matters, the article focuses on substantive aspects, namely, the kinds of claims that can be filed, the kind of defences that can be raised, and how arbitral tribunals can adjudicate such matters. In this way, the article ultimately concludes that both continuity and change are necessary for ensuring the health and wealth of nations and justice among them.


Author(s):  
A. Ya. Kapustin ◽  
I P. Zhuravleva

INTRODUCTION. The issue of implementation of international legal norms is extensive and multifaceted, and most importantly, it is always relevant. Despite the long-term development of questions of the operation of international law in national legal systems, the issue remains in the focus of researchers. Russian scholarship is quite rich in research of this area, and the practice of Russian courts is also rich in examples of the use and application of international law. Their presentation at the international level can significantly enrich the basis for analytical comparisons with the practice of other countries and further developments in this area. Nevertheless, the research of Russian authors is not well represented in the international legal discourse: the appearance of works by our compatriots in foreign editions is not so frequent. That is why monographic research papers by Russian authors published in major foreign publishing houses is of great interest to both Russian and foreign readers. At the same time, such publications implicitly set a high bar for expectations from their content.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article presents a critical understanding of the monograph of Professor S. Marochkin, published in 2019 by one of the world's oldest publishers Brill-Nijhoff (Leiden, the Netherlands) – "the Operation of international law in the Russian legal system. Changing approach". The article highlights key elements of the study. Special attention is paid to the reflections and conclusions of the author of the monograph on the theory of international law. The analysis of the research is based on general and private scientific methods.RESEARCH RESULTS. Th reviewed monograph presents to our attention a wide range of Soviet and Russian general theoretical, discipline-specific and international legal doctrines. The work covers a significant period of theoretical, normative, institutional and practical development of the issue of implementation of international legal norms – more than three decades. This corresponds to the goal set out in the study – to show a changing approach to the issue in scholarship, judicial practice, and rule-making. The monograph consistently exposes the author's idea about the essence of national implementation of the principles and norms of international law, domestic legal and institutional mechanisms for such implementation, assessment and generalization of the practice of Russian courts related to the appeal to international law and the application of international legal norms. At the same time the monograph begs some questions: 1) on the author's understanding of the content of the concerned concepts in the theory of international law; 2) on the methods of law-formation in the national and international legal system; 3) on the constituent elements of the international legal system; 4) on the meaning and nature of self-executing international legal norms; 5) on the problem of international legal personality; 6) on the author's view of the state of modern legal scholarship in Russia.DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS. Russian scholarship, as well as practice in the law-making, law-application and law-enforcement have gone a long way in mastering and ensuring the constitutional provision on the principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation as an integral part of the national legal system. The reviewed book emphasizes the importance of theoretical justification and competent application of theoretical theses on the place and role of norms and sources of international law within national jurisdiction, on the correlation of the legal force of international and domestic norms. Indeed, both legal scholars and public institutions that directly address questions about the operation of international legal norms need to have a complete understanding about the functioning of the regulatory and institutional mechanism for implementation of international legal obligations in the domestic sphere. In this light, it is reasonable to attach particular importance to the role of the judiciary branch in appealing to and applying international law. The research paper consistently demonstrates changes in the practice and approaches to the perception of international law over time with ups and downs in the estimation of its significance and role in the country's legal order. Although the study claims to offer an exhaustive fundamental analysis of all the problems raised, the author still makes some theoretical mistakes that complicate the correct understanding of his analytical work. Thereby the author challenges himself to continue the research of the issue in order to untangle some knots of doctrinal contradictions.


2021 ◽  
pp. 11-42
Author(s):  
Joanna Dingwall

Chapter 1 places this study within its broader methodological framework. Firstly, it offers a method of analysis for evaluating the deep seabed mining regime, drawing on the international legal system more generally, and including elements of formalism and the New Haven approach. Secondly, it provides a methodological perspective on one of this study’s key strands: the role of non-state actors (specifically, corporations). It does so by addressing the terminology concerning non-state actors and corporate entities; considering the means by which corporate nationality can be established as a matter of international law (including by reference to the law of diplomatic protection, international investment law and the concept of flag state nationality); assessing the role of corporations within the international legal system; and providing an initial analysis of the necessary conditions for corporate rights and corporate obligations under international law. This analysis provides the necessary conceptual backdrop against which this book can evaluate the role of corporate activities within deep seabed mining.


2005 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anja Lindroos

AbstractThe increased fragmentation of international law has been accompanied by a more problematic phenomenon: institutional fragmentation that has strengthened the role of specialised regimes (e. g., WTO, EU, human rights and environmental regimes) within the international legal system. "The emergence of seemingly independent subregimes has given rise to a number of legal concerns – among these is the existence of normative conflicts between regimes." In a recent report by the Chairman of the ILC Study Group on Fragmentation of International Law, Martti Koskenniemi, dealt with the role of the lex specialis maxim as a means of addressing the relation between selfcontained regimes and general international law. This article argues that an application of lex specialis, although widely accepted, is impeded by its conceptual vagueness. Lex specialis may be well-suited to resolve certain types of normative conflicts, such as conflicts within sub-regimes, which may be viewed as a more traditional manifestation of normative conflicts. The fragmentation of international law, however, has also created new types of conflicts, namely those between different, seemingly independent normative orders. The article suggests that the lex specialis maxim is a less-suitable approach to normative conflicts between such unrelated normative orders. In a fragmented legal system such as that of international law, these types of conflicts may, accordingly, prove a particular challenge.


2009 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulf Linderfalk

AbstractIn the international legal literature, it is commonplace to talk about the law of state responsibility as secondary rules of law. The terminology emphasises that in some way or another the law of state responsibility is different from other rules of the international legal system – what international legal scholars refer to as primary rules of law. The present essay inquires into the soundness of this language. As argued, the primary-secondary rules terminology builds on two assumptions. First, it assumes that the law of state responsibility can be described as separate from the ordinary (or primary) rules of international law. Secondly, it assumes that the two classes of rules can be described as pertaining to different stages of the judicial decision-making process. As shown in this essay, neither assumption can be defended as correct.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document